Federer-Davydenko
Federer-Del Potro (could have been really competitive, but sadly not).
Nadal-Almagro (only 8-0, but still a clear mismatch between the king of clay and the other clay specialist)
Nadal-Ferrer (just at 80%)

Hewitt dominated Federer with like 7/9 victories pre 2003 Federer prime years, however I don't think Federer has lost to Hewitt from 2004 and onwards except at Halle. Not even worth considering it a rivalry as one of the players jumped up to a whole different league.

Usually.. "rivalries" bring unpredictability. Like Fed-Hewitt or Fed-Roddick, or even Nadal-Fed usually brought NO unpredictability.. You damn well knew who was going to win the majority of those matches.

Slower surfaces like clay, slow hard courts, or slow clay, Nadal was going to have the advantage over Roger 8 or 9 times out of 10.. . Indoors, Fed was going to have the advantage 9 times out of 10.. And thats how it played out. Or if it was just a best 5, Nadal usually got the advantage while Fed had a better chance if it was just a best of 3 set match.

Fed-Roddick for instance.. THAT was a rivalry? You knew Roddick would flub it up if he was in a position to win and Roger would get the best out of Roddick at the end.. Again.. TOTALLY PREDICTABLE. And the h2h kind of showed that.. Thats not a rivalry IMO.. Because Roddick could never beat Roger even on Roger's worst day..

I don't know if Rivalries should be considered "bad" or the "worst". If it was a true rivalry, you wouldn't know who the heck is winning.

Best of 5, slam time, Nadal-Fed.. You put your money on Nadal damn near EVERY TIME as it played out the same every time. (Fed starts out strong, but Rafa continues to impose his will and Fed faulters. It was a reoccurring theme through their entire careers). Fed-Roddick ANY TIME for instance, you don't even put a penny on Roddick.

Usually.. "rivalries" bring unpredictability. Like Fed-Hewitt or Fed-Roddick, or even Nadal-Fed usually brought NO unpredictability.. You damn well knew who was going to win the majority of those matches.

Slower surfaces like clay, slow hard courts, or slow clay, Nadal was going to have the advantage over Roger 8 or 9 times out of 10.. . Indoors, Fed was going to have the advantage 9 times out of 10.. And thats how it played out. Or if it was just a best 5, Nadal usually got the advantage while Fed had a better chance if it was just a best of 3 set match.

Fed-Roddick for instance.. THAT was a rivalry? You knew Roddick would flub it up if he was in a position to win and Roger would get the best out of Roddick at the end.. Again.. TOTALLY PREDICTABLE. And the h2h kind of showed that.. Thats not a rivalry IMO.. Because Roddick could never beat Roger even on Roger's worst day..

I don't know if Rivalries should be considered "bad" or the "worst". If it was a true rivalry, you wouldn't know who the heck is winning.

Best of 5, slam time, Nadal-Fed.. You put your money on Nadal damn near EVERY TIME as it played out the same every time. (Fed starts out strong, but Rafa continues to impose his will and Fed faulters. It was a reoccurring theme through their entire careers). Fed-Roddick ANY TIME for instance, you don't even put a penny on Roddick

Hewitt dominated Federer with like 7/9 victories pre 2003 Federer prime years, however I don't think Federer has lost to Hewitt from 2004 and onwards except at Halle. Not even worth considering it a rivalry as one of the players jumped up to a whole different league.

Click to expand...

It's not even a rivalry. Using such a word to address the Fed/Hewitt match ups would be an insult to the true rivalries. ie Federer/Nadal

If Nadal were to win the next 22 meetings with Federer (not impossible, as both Roger and Rafa will likely play for a few more years, and Djokovic-Nadal met 6 times only last year), then the Federer-Nadal rivalry would satisfy your criteria for being one of the worst rivalries of all time.

Sampras-Agassi was much closer. It's funny that Fed is the Sampras of our time so to speak yet can't beat his Agassi.

Click to expand...

I agree that it is overrated, although the topic creator specified one player would have to win 80% of the meetings (which Nadal has the chance to do if he wins the next 22 meetings, which is entirely possible). Yes, Sampras-Agassi reflects the Djokovic-Nadal rivalry more, actually. Sampras led Agassi 20-14, and Nadal leads Djokovic 19-14, only one win away from mirroring the Sampras-Agassi H2H.

I agree that it is overrated, although the topic creator specified one player would have to win 80% of the meetings (which Nadal has the chance to do if he wins the next 22 meetings, which is entirely possible). Yes, Sampras-Agassi reflects the Djokovic-Nadal rivalry more, actually. Sampras led Agassi 20-14, and Nadal leads Djokovic 19-14, only one win away from mirroring the Sampras-Agassi H2H.

Click to expand...

Didn't see the 80 percent. It actually is 80 percent in slams now (8-2).

As a Novak fan, we will have to agree to disagree on that. Nadal hasn't dominated Djoker the way Sampras did Agassi in meaningful matches. The numbers in the h2h are strikingly close, I'll give you that

People always bring up Fed-Roddick first in these threads, but it's a bit unfair because Andy has a better record against Roger than quite a few Top 20 players, as horrid as it is. Though they haven't had the same career in terms of titles and big matches, look at Ferrer (no wins) and Soderling (who has only one win against Roger, despite often having been trumpeted as a danger player against Fed).

Also, despite the lopsided results, most of those Roddick slam finals were more competitive than a lot of Roger's non-Nadal finales. Wimbledon '04, U.S. Open '06 and (especially) Wimbledon '09 were great matches, with Roddick winning five sets total, unfortunately for him three couldn't come in one tournament.

17-12, Nadal leads. What's you problem? Don't know much about tennis? When you want tp speak about the things you know nothing about, you can always visit the ATP site with its massive data array, and look much more intelligent that you really are.

17-12, Nadal leads. What's you problem? Don't know much about tennis? When you want tp speak about the things you know nothing about, you can always visit the ATP site with its massive data array, and look much more intelligent that you really are.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant Djokovic 2.0. And if you don't want to accept 2.0, then please do accept Rosol, 1-0 . 100%!

17-12, Nadal leads. What's you problem? Don't know much about tennis? When you want tp speak about the things you know nothing about, you can always visit the ATP site with its massive data array, and look much more intelligent that you really are.

Click to expand...

I think it's 19-14, and Nadal is one win away from making the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry mirror the Sampras-Agassi H2H (which was 20-14). The US Open final would be a great place to do that.

A contrast in styles ~ serve-volleyer vs baseliner ~ often makes for a good rivalry, so I'm going to put Edberg vs Muster out there (10-0).

Sorry, Mustard.

Regards,
MDL

Click to expand...

Hey :razz:

Edberg was just a nightmare matchup for Muster in every way, because Muster loved to go toe-to-toe in baseline wars and he liked to go through opponents as he wasn't as good with passing shots. Edberg would always hover around the net, hitting away volleys, and being a right nuisance

It speaks volumes about Muster's fighting ability that he came close to winning a few of the matches, including one on grass at 1996 Queen's Club. However, I firmly believe that Muster would have beaten Edberg on clay in 1995-1996, but they didn't meet.

2000-2003: hewitt dominated fed
2003-2005: goderer dominated hewitt at the same time that he was dominating every1

since 2005, hewitt has been a cripple with ankle, hip, toe problems. yet he has performed much better against fed than he did in the middle period o their rivalry - usually takes a set or at least pushes fed 2 a tiebreaker or two. when hewitt is fit, they usually have quite competitive matches

kinda get the feeling that if hewitt had stayed in peak fitness til after fed took his finger off the god button, their rivalry would look a lot more competitive

borg was the worst. v gerulaitis he was 17-0 and v vilas he was 17-5. watchin borg steamroll the tour in the 70s must have been borin as hell

sampras-courier has gotta be one of the worst for two greats o the game. sampras led courier 16-4, even dusted him up on clay a coupla times

agassi-ferreira is prolly one of the biggest dominations ever over a top 10 player. agassi not only leads 11-0, but ferreira only ever won 1 set against him. even more impressive since ferreira was 6-7 against sampras